alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Research

31,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 426–450 of 530 studies · free to read (page 18 of 22) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 530 studies tagged mild-cognitive — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

Subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 16,851 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Enhancing Mild Cognitive Impairment Auxiliary Identification Through Multimodal Cognitive Assessment with Eye Tracking and Convolutional Neural Network Analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Biomedicines 2025-03-18

Overall, the combined features model achieved a higher discrimination accuracy than models with single feature sets alone. 5 key findings →

Participants: 128 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cognitive assessment across normal aging and subjective cognitive decline using PGIMS and Stroop color-word test: A cross-sectional study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus 2025-03-01

Early detection of abnormal neurodegeneration amidst normal cognitive aging is crucial. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment for the Detection of Neurocognitive Disorder: Open-Label Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2025-06-19

RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.91; P<.001). 5 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The Validity and Reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination-2 for Detecting Vascular Mild Cognitive Impairment and Vascular Dementia in a Korean Population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025-01-01

The MMSE-2 demonstrated robust performance in differentiating participants across Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) stages and CDR-Sum of Boxes scores. 5 key findings →

Participants: 66 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Handwriting in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Reliability Assessment and Machine Learning–Based Screening

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. JMIR Aging 2025-09-23

The presented results suggest the suitability of ecological handwriting analysis for the all-around monitoring of MCI, from early screening to disease progression evaluation. 4 key findings →

Participants: 57 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Machine learning diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment using advanced diffusion MRI and CSF biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring 2025-07-01

MAP-RTAP (AUC = 0.78) and pTau/Aβ42 (AUC = 0.76) were the best performing individual biomarkers. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neural deterioration and compensation in visual short‐term memory among individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-01-17

Among the atrophic brain regions in aMCI, VSTM performance correlated with the volume of the right prefrontal cortex (PFC) but not the medial temporal lobe (MTL), and this correlation was mainly present in patients with greater MTL atrophy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Exploration of working memory retrieval stage for mild cognitive impairment: time-varying causality analysis of electroencephalogram based on dynamic brain networks

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 2025-03-13

Our results showed that: (a) Behavioral data analysis: there were significant differences in accuracy and accuracy / reaction time between MCI and NC in tasks with memory load capacity of low load-four and high load-six, especially in tasks with memory load capacity of four. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Comprehensive Anatomical Staging Predicts Clinical Progression in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Data-Driven Approach

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2025-06-09

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) presents significant challenges in clinical practice due to its heterogeneous manifestation and variable progression rates. 3 key findings →

Participants: 504 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Linking oxysterols and different stages of mild cognitive impairment: insights from gut metabolites and N6-methyladenosine

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Alzheimer s Research & Therapy 2025-05-13

EMCIs and LMCIs, especially LMCIs, exhibited poorer performance in almost all global and multidimensional cognitive tests. 5 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Exploring emotion recognition in patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s dementia undergoing a rehabilitation program

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. PLoS ONE 2025-04-24

Emotion scores for fear and surprise were significantly higher for the AD group than for the MCI group during dual tasks (p=0.016), while emotion scores for joy were significantly higher for the MCI group than for the AD group during creative activities (p=0.012). 4 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Neuropsychological tests and machine learning: identifying predictors of MCI and dementia progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2025-03-12

The tests qualitatively and statistically associated to a cognitive decline are MMSE, FAB, BSTR, AM, and VSF, of which at least three were considered the most informative also by machine learning. 73% average accuracy was obtained in the diagnosis prediction on three subsets of original and external data. 3 key findings →

Participants: 281 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The analysis of the gut microbiome during liver disease progression led to the identification of biomarkers for related mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Frontiers in Microbiology 2025-09-16

could serve as potential biomarkers for NAFLD-associated mild cognitive impairment; 3) bacterial metabolic functions involved in sugar degradation and the breakdown of tryptophan and glutamate were downregulated and linked to CXCL13 plasma levels and neuroinflammation; 4) correlations between SCFA concentrations disappeared with liver disease and cognitive impairment. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The role of verbal episodic memory in progression to mild cognitive impairment: The influence of serial position effects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. International Psychogeriatrics 2026-04-01

SCD participants were older, had fewer years of education, more depressive symptoms, and more subjective cognitive complaints than CU participants. 4 key findings →

Participants: 315 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Rationale and design of a multidomain lifestyle program for mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-01-01

The development of non-pharmacological treatment approaches is supported by evidence that addressing key modifiable risk factors may prevent or delay up to 45% of dementia cases. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Analysis of the Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment and its Influencing Factors in the Elderly Population in Huzhou City

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría 2025-05-05

A total of 800 questionnaires were sent out in this survey, and 778 were effectively collected, with an effective recovery rate of 97.25%. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 82 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 31,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events